Thursday, July 9th 2020

NVIDIA Surpasses Intel in Market Cap Size

Yesterday after the stock market has closed, NVIDIA has officially reached a bigger market cap compared to Intel. After hours, the price of the NVIDIA (ticker: NVDA) stock is $411.20 with a market cap of 251.31B USD. It marks a historic day for NVIDIA as the company has historically been smaller than Intel (ticker: INTC), with some speculating that Intel could buy NVIDIA in the past while the company was much smaller. Intel's market cap now stands at 248.15B USD, which is a bit lower than NVIDIA's. However, the market cap is not an indication of everything. NVIDIA's stock is fueled by the hype generated around Machine Learning and AI, while Intel is not relying on any possible bubbles.

If we compare the revenues of both companies, Intel is having much better performance. It had a revenue of 71.9 billion USD in 2019, while NVIDIA has 11.72 billion USD of revenue. No doubt that NVIDIA has managed to do a good job and it managed to almost double revenue from 2017, where it went from $6.91 billion in 2017 to $11.72 billion in 2019. That is an amazing feat and market predictions are that it is not stopping to grow. With the recent acquisition of Mellanox, the company now has much bigger opportunities for expansion and growth.
Add your own comment

136 Comments on NVIDIA Surpasses Intel in Market Cap Size

#126
Vya Domus
What's certain is that Physx always ran poorly, even if you had said Nvidia hardware, there is no doubt that Nvidia tried to turn it into a disadvantage for their competitor. I'm glad that basically no one is using it these days, good riddance, it was outclassed by many in-house physics engines anyway.
Posted on Reply
#127
InVasMani
Physx the way it's meant be "thrown" away...
Posted on Reply
#128
john_
Fiendish
So first, it was Nvidia crippled/hobbled "their" software to make their GPU's look better, then it was Nvidia didn't "fix" the software they inherited from Ageia, then it's Nvidia didn't fix it fast enough... seriously?
Oh come on. I am saying the same thing in all cases. You just try to play with words here. If you don't fix something or postpone fixing it, it's no different than crippling it, or if you prefer let it being crippled.
Now if you need me to talk like a lawyer with 100% accuracy in what I am saying, and no freedom in what someone should consider of having in an honest dialog and not in a stupid brainless efford to just pass his opinion, we can continue in Greek. I am flount in Greek, I am just average at best in English.
Ageia got multiple developers to do exactly what you're saying they couldn't do, have you done any research on this?
Again, Nvidia completely supported porting GPU PhysX to Radeons.
gizmodo.com/nvidia-helping-modders-port-physx-engine-to-ati-radeon-5023150

You've made claims like Nvidia designed the CPU portion of PhysX to make the GPU portion look better, which is impossible because the CPU portion was written before GPUs were even part of the equation and was not even "designed" by Nvidia in the first place. When I pointed this out, did you clarify or correct your claim... no you just moved on to more falsities. Are you saying that wasn't intentional?

You seemingly not reading the prior posts so as to easily put together what I meant by "you guys" is me.... rejecting reality? You're not even making sense anymore.

It was already discussed before. Nvidia tried to extended their technology to AMD's products but AMD said no way, go to hell, we are backing Intel... so Nvidia said no YOU go to hell and locked out their products in response. Check the dates, AMD acted in bad faith first by stringing Eran Badit and consumers along and then sinking the whole thing. Nvidia supporting the porting effort directly contradicts the core of your notions.
You can keep posting bullshits(your word) if that makes you feel better. Nvidia locked PhysX when there was no compatibility problems to do so. Let me show you something and that will be my last post here. As I said you are a waste of time. Wasting time in weekend is a totally different thing than wasting time in workdays.

Here is that bone you said before. Newer Nvidia drivers WITHOUT a lock with HARDWARE PhysX running while an AMD GPU is PRIMARY.

PS. It's good that hardware physics didn't became the standard. Today the CPU is the system part that is underutilized in modern demanding titles, not the GPU. So, throwing more at the GPU it's not exactly the best idea today.

Posted on Reply
#129
Fiendish
Vya Domus
What's certain is that Physx always ran poorly, even if you had said Nvidia hardware, there is no doubt that Nvidia tried to turn it into a disadvantage for their competitor. I'm glad that basically no one is using it these days, good riddance, it was outclassed by many in-house physics engines anyway.
The important time for it to have been used would have been back "then", in 2008-2009 and the beginning of the 2010s were broader usage would have steered the direction of GPU designs to be more flexible and suited to the task, something we are only starting to see now after a decade of stagnation. It might have happened if AMD had supported the PhysX porting effort or had actually pursued GPU acceleration for Bullet physics like they promised. In both situations AMD's initial promises were hollow, according to Erwin Coumans from Bullet, "AMD didn't allocate any resources on the project"... which certainly sounds familiar. AMD didn't really need GPU physics to work out like Nvidia did and I guess from their point of view it was probably better if Nvidia's resources were just wasted but ultimately it makes the whole "Nvidia gobbled up Ageia and in their greed, cost us all an amazing GPU physics filled future" notion particularly cringe-worthy.
Posted on Reply
#130
Vya Domus
Fiendish
something we are only starting to see now after a decade of stagnation.
That's just not true, GPU accelerated particles effects, which is what Physx was mostly used for have been a thing since a long time ago.
Posted on Reply
#131
john_
Vya Domus
That's just not true, GPU accelerated particles effects, which is what Physx was mostly used for have been a thing since a long time ago.
He doesn't want to understand that. He things that there where no physics effects before Ageia or that physics effects demand a GPU to run on it.
Posted on Reply
#132
Fiendish
Vya Domus
That's just not true, GPU accelerated particles effects, which is what Physx was mostly used for have been a thing since a long time ago.
Those effects map relatively well to even GPUs from yesteryear but even then it doesn't take much for things to get bogged down. Modern GPUs handle those kinds effects far better. You can see the difference in relative performance cost between Nvidia's older architectures and Turing for something like the Flex effects in Killing Floor 2.
Posted on Reply
#133
InVasMani
Fiendish
It makes the whole "Nvidia gobbled up Ageia and in their greed, cost us all an amazing GPU physics filled future" notion particularly cringe-worthy.
Might have been inclined to agree with some of your points until that portion...Nvidia I bought out Ageia and stifled Physx and I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that pesky AMD/Intel.
john_
PS. It's good that hardware physics didn't became the standard. Today the CPU is the system part that is underutilized in modern demanding titles, not the GPU. So, throwing more at the GPU it's not exactly the best idea today.


I wouldn't say good, but it's not bad at the same time the way things are right now on the CPU side. What we really need is something more like Vulkan on software and hardware side that numerous players could adapt. A open ended software/hardware Vulkan inspired FPGA combination mixed with re-programmable software profiles with a mixture of variable rate shading would probably be best for physics. I mean actual physics in games can probably get very computational depending on the complexity involved so them variable rate to dumb down and fake them more reasonably relative to the required hardware overhead seems like the obvious thing to do.
Posted on Reply
#134
Fiendish
InVasMani
Might have been inclined to agree with some of your points until that portion...Nvidia I bought out Ageia and stifled Physx and I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that pesky AMD/Intel.
What don't you agree with?
Posted on Reply
#135
InVasMani
Fiendish
What don't you agree with?
I guess it depends in the context of what you actually meant. It's defiantly not at all AMD or Intel's fault or problem what happened with Ageia and Physx after Nvidia bought the IP because ultimately they accountable for their own IP and no one else. Could it have been better with support from them as well yeah sure perhaps, but that's probably true of IP held by the other two companies as well.
Posted on Reply
#136
xrobwx71
Metroid
Yeah, Intel could have bought Nvidia at that time just like AMD acquired ATI but unlikely AMD, Intel opted not to and now Intel must be crying out loud in some corner hehe
If we compare the revenues of both companies, Intel is having much better performance. It had a revenue of 71.9 billion USD in 2019, while NVIDIA has 11.72 billion USD of revenue.
No crying at Intel, I assure you.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment